Pros an offline version is indeed available
Cons none to mention
Summary you can get an offline version of wikipedia here:
It's also funny that the cnet review considers this a con:
"Wikipedia's information-jammed pages and plain-Jane design are easy to navigate but may seem less than dazzling for casual users accustomed to colorful, flashy Web pages."
Pros Clearly the closest thing to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
Cons Vandalism and incomplete information.
Summary There is an offline version. Vandalism isn't even a big issue since only things you'd expect that will be vandalized is. I totally disagree with the review. It is free for a reason.
Pros Wikipedia is easy to access and gives fast reference from with to begin a research project.
Cons The depth of articles seems very shallow and the lack of accuracy make it wotthless for any serious research.
Summary Use this encyclopedia when depth and accuracy are not important factors. It's easy access and ease of use make it a handy quick reference only.
"Dangerous."on by ProbStat
Pros For completely non-controversial topics, may be used as a starting point for information.
Cons Often deliberately missleading.
Summary The most immediately obvious problem with Wikipedia is that a majority of its articles are poorly written and, if you ever happen to look at an article on a topic about which you are knowledgeable, poorly informed. Use the "Random Article" link on Wikipedia's display page a couple times, and you'll see what I mean.
But the most serious problem with Wikipedia is that on many topics it has devolved into a very crude propaganda outlet, with one side of a dispute controlling information through group editing wars and abuse of process. An informed Wikipedia user knows to look at the discussion page and the history of edits to any controversial article in order to see what has been left out (ofter more accurately, censored) before relying in the least on anything in the article itself. And this is usually more burdensome than the net result of the effort.
What is dangerous about Wikipedia is that few users will bother with this effort at all, and so will end up consuming base propaganda as though it is broadly accepted information.
Anyone who doubts this should take a long afternoon looking at the evolution of articles related to Israel and Zionism in Wikipedia.
Pros Lots of coverage of even the most obscure of subjects
Cons Near impossible to follow rules
Summary One can spend hours perusing Wikipedia but heaven forbid you attempt to edit an article you know to be wrong or incomplete. It's easy to run afoul of some rule or 'Wiki Culture' convention.